The Commission has just launched a new public consultation on "Directive 90/496 on Nutrient Labelling: Discussion paper on Revision of Technical Issues". The consultation is a part of the broad revision process of food safety legislation launched by the Commission, e.g. Regulation on Health & Nutrition Claims, Regulation on vitamins and minerals and Directive on labelling of foodstuffs. The Commission asks to submit their responses till 14 July 2006. The Commission asks to submit comments on very technical questions, as the issue of nutrient leballing itself is already covered by the general consultation on labeling. Please find the text of the consultation below.

The Second Reading in the European Parliament on Regulation on Health& Nutrition Claims took place today. An overwhelming majority of the members of the European Parliament voted in favour of the compromise package on health & nutrition claims which was reached between the European institutions early last week (please refer to our last email on health & nutrition claims, which you can find below, where we explain in details the content of the informal agreement between the European Parliament and the Council). In terms of final adoption of the Regulation, it means that Conciliation has been avoided.

The outcome of the vote in the European Parliament is as follows:

• On Art 4 (nutrient profiles- see Amendment 17): a nutrient claims shall be allowed even if a single nutrient exceeds the nutrient profiles provided that a statement about the specific nutrient appears in close proximity to, on the same side and with the same prominence as the claim.

Example: "source of proteins* "
* the name of the nutrient exceeding the nutrient profile

• On the approval procedure (see Amendment 33): a simplified procedure was agreed for non disease risk reduction claims: registration procedure. A company that wants to make a claim that is not already on the authorized list would make the request, which would be considered by the EFSA Registration would be granted for the claim five months after the date of receipt.
  
• On trademarks (see Amendment 37): the transitional period of 15 years for existing trademarks was agreed.
  
• On transitional periods:

- Amendment 38: The compromise allows for food on the market or labelled before the application of this Regulation to be marketed until their expiry date but no later than the last day of the 30th month following the entry in force of the Regulation.

- Amendment 38: On the nutrient profiles, foods with such profiles may be marketed until 24 months following the adoption of the relevant profiles.

- Amendment 40: Nutritional claims used in Members States before 1 January 2006 can be used until 3 years after the entry into force of the Regulation.

The European Consumer organisation BEUC published a "Black Book" of claims used on foods across Europe and the US which it considers to be misleading.

BEUC's black book criticises various brands such as Milky Way Spread, Chupa Chips Lollipops, Haribo, Nesquik chocolate snack, Danone Activia and Kraft Ziz Extra Chester cheese

The Black Book is available here.

The European Parliament's Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI) vote on the Health & Nutrition Claims Regulation took place on 21 March 2006.

Please find a brief summary of the vote and the discussions.

• Nutrient Profiles (The main point of contention throughout the legislative process): All amendments proposing deletion of Article 4 were rejected in favour of a disclosure paragraph. A combination of amendments were approved which would allow for disclosure in the case of nutrition claims only (i.e. and not health claims) and for more than one nutrient. Additional specifications were approved e.g. that the information should be factual, non-discriminatory character and clearly visible to the consumer.
  
  
• Annex: The Committee did not vote on the Annex, in other terms, the ENSA amendments were not adopted. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr Florenz (EPP, Germany), decided that the amendments table for the Annex were not admissible. This did not raise any debate in the Committee and most of the MEPs agreed.
  
  
• Approval procedure: The Environment Committee proposed a third path - registration procedure: a quicker and more flexible procedure for health statements which do not claim to reduce the risk of illness. But the authorisation procedure would still be required for products which do make disease reduction claims or where the European Food Safety Agency, which is involved in the procedure, objects to a new registration.
  
  
• Definition of nutrient claims: The Committee failed by a very narrow margin to remove the restriction of the definition of nutrition claims to beneficial claims only.

Food labelling Conference in Rotterdam (15-16 February 2006).

The event was organised by the Food Standards Agency and the Dutch Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS). The conference comes as the European Commission continues its review of labelling legislation. The first day representatives from food manufacturing, retail, consumer groups and small business shared their views on food labelling with policy makers from across Europe. The second day, the conference was opened only to the government representatives.

The degree to which the current labelling regime meets consumer and industry requirements was questioned and there were calls for simplification and consolidation of existing EU legislation. Possible solutions for the future were suggested such as: standardisation of the way information is provided to aid consumers in navigating labels, the use of logos to address problems caused by multi-lingual labels, simplifying nutrition labelling to provide information that is both understandable and of use to consumers, and the provision of information off-label.